OneLBriefs

Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California

Supreme Court of CA - 1976

Facts:

Poddar was under the care of psychologist D. D learned from Poddar that he intended to kill P.

D had the campus police detain Poddar. D and other psychologists got together and decided that no further action should be taken to detain Poddar.

Two months later, Poddar shot and stabbed P to death.

P's parents sued D for failing to detain Poddar and failing to warn about the danger.

Procedural History:

Trial court dismissed P's claim (doctors had tort immunity).

CA Supreme Court reversed, remanded.

Issues:

Does a psychologist have a duty to warn those who might be in danger at the hands of his patients?

Holding/Rule:

A psychologist has a duty to warn those who might be in danger at the hands of his patients.

Reasoning:

There is an exception to the general no duty rule in cases in which the D stands in some special relationship to either the person whose conduct needs to be controlled or in a relationship to the foreseeable victim of that conduct. (Restatement 315-320)

Since predictions of violence are often erroneous, it is not required that the psychologist render a perfect performance.

The therapist must, however, exercise that ordinary skill, knowledge, care ordinarily exercised by those members of the professional specialty under similar circumstances.

Once a therapist determines or should have determined that a patient poses a serious danger of violence to others, he bears a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim of that danger.

The risk that unnecessary warnings be given is a reasonable price to pay to save lives.

The whole doctor patient privilege thing doesn't apply here; the legislature carved out an exception for these circumstances.